Uber drivers are pretty much unequivocally employees.

See Uber v. Berwick.

1) The Driver could not perform the work without Uber's permission as an intermediary b/t the Driver & Customer.

2) The Driver has no investment in the business beyond using a car for business purposes [as pizza delivery employees and others do, and are reimbursed by their employer] and a deposit for an iPhone [which is customary for company property that is taken off premises, and occurs in other industries such as uniforms for fast food employees].

3) There is no managerial skills that affect profit or loss. Uber is the only party exercising this control.

4) The Driver has no control over pricing and is discouraged from being tipped. Uber sets prices as an employer would.

5) Uber effectively "hires" drivers via its vetting process, background checks, and other QA mechanisms to decide which drivers should be allowed to use the platform. It also "fires" drivers who fail to meet Uber's QA standards.

6) The Driver cannot subcontract in any meaningful way.

This shouldn't be surprising that even 2-3 of these things would be enough to trigger "employee status". Particularly price setting, choice of equipment, and choice of subcontractor are all 100% required to be classified as a contractor. A lack of any of these things immediately flips you to an employee. A lack of all 3 in this situation pretty much makes it a no brainer.

To be honest this is a pretty good example of why we ought to cut back on labour market regulation. Uber drivers are employees any way you look at it, but it's quite clear that the current arrangement (where they're kind of treated as contractors) is preferable for both the company and the "employees", and a good business model.

Just fucking leave them be, they're providing a good service as they are.

More taxes for the world government

ayyy lmao

But i heard one of the biggest argument is that other taxi companies cannot compete.

Good.

That's a sign that Uber is providing a better service.

When existing companies claim they can't compete and want the new company shut down, that's usually a sign that the new company is onto something good.

When existing companies claim they can't compete and want the new company shut down, that's usually a sign that the new company is onto something good.

And that "something good" is really just a way to skirt around the insurance and licensing that actual cab companies/drivers legally have to obtain.

Quote from: DAS R00D BUOY on June 21, 2015, 09:23:57 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 21, 2015, 01:26:53 AM

When existing companies claim they can't compete and want the new company shut down, that's usually a sign that the new company is onto something good.

And that "something good" is really just a way to skirt around the insurance and licensing that actual cab companies/drivers legally have to obtain.

well maybe cab insurance and licensing is just artificially inflated and cabs don't suit the needs of the consumer anymore. Supply and demand.

Take that up with the state then.

I figure services like Uber, Lyft and similar ride share apps where the driver is essentially an employee of the company which manages the app are either going to be forced by law into the same standards as conventional taxi services, or (and this I don't see happening) taxis will become more deregulated as companies lobby governments to allow them to be competitive in a market designed to restrict them.